Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16106-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2630 of 2025 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Lko And 3 Others Respondent :- U.P. Public Services Tribunal Lko Thru. Chairman And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. (1) Heard Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants-State authorities. (2) The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed in Claim Petition No. 2027 of 2022, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent No.2 has been allowed and the impugned adverse entry and integrity doubtful for the years 2018-19 (01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019) from the Annual Character Roll and the order passed on the representation against the aforesaid adverse entry dated 09.09.2021 were quashed. Further, it was ordered that the aforesaid adverse remark for the year 2018-19 shall not be treated as adverse for granting all service benefits which have been withheld on account of the impugned adverse entry. (3) In nutshell the case of the petitioners is that against the adverse entry for the year 2018-19 which was communicated to the claimant on 29.06.2020 alongwith letter dated 30.05.2020, the claimant preferred a detailed representation before the Joint Commissioner Excise, Meerut Zone, Meerut on 13.07.2020 within a period of 45 days as provided under Rule - 4 of the U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of representation against annual confidential reports and allied matters) Rules, 1995. The said representation was rejected by the Joint Commissioner Excise, Meerut Zone, Meerut vide order dated 09.09.2021 after more than 416 days from the date of submission of representation and the said rejection order was communicated to the claimant through WhatsApp message on 23.03.2022. Being aggrieved, he filed the claim petition on the ground that relevant Rules have not been followed while deciding his representation, which was allowed, as stated in the preceding paragraph of the order. (4) It has been stated at the Bar that the question involved in the instant writ petition has already been set at rest by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 23.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 134 (SB) of 2002, State of U.P. and others v. Narendra Singh and others, with the observation that in the cases where the representation against the adverse entry has not been disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of U.P. Government Servants (Disposal of Representation against Annual Confidential Reports and allied Matters) Rules, 1995, such report shall not be treated as adverse for the purpose of promotion, crossing of efficiency bar and other service matters of the government servant concerned as per the mandate of Rule 5 of Rules, 1995. (5) Relevant paragraph Nos. 41 and 46 of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:- "41. The analysis of the provisions of rules 1995 makes it crystal clear that there is a prescribed time schedule for disposal of the representation and the time starts from the stage of communication of the adverse reports in writing to a government servant. The authorities have been given discretion to allow further time of 45 days to the government servant, where government servant fails to submit his representation against the adverse report within the time of 45 days from the date of communication, on showing sufficient cause for not submitting the representation within the prescribed period of 45 days. The rule further mandates that if the comments of the authority, who has recorded the adverse report are not received within the time prescribed, the competent authority has to proceed further without waiting for the comments and pass speaking orders within a period of 120 days from the date of expiry of 45 days specified in sub-rule (3). 46. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that Rules 1995, no where provides the situation, where the representation of a government servant has been decided by the competent authority beyond/ after the expiry of time schedule prescribed under rule 4 will remain in operation except for the period upto the disposal of the representation." (6) Since the case of the claimant-respondent No.2 is covered within the four corners of the the aforesaid judgment, the writ petition filed by the State Authorities is liable to be dismissed and the claimant-respondent No.2 is entitled for the same benefit which has been granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment. (7) Keeping in view the judgment and order passed in Narendra Singh (supra), the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. . [Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 20.3.2025 lakshman/Vaishali Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench